Danny Webb Construction Company, Inc. and Danny Webb v. North Hills Group, Inc., 22-789

Danny Webb Construction obtained a lease from North Hills Group, Inc., to inject fracking waste via Well 508 on North Hills’ property.
Webb Construction injected fluids into Well 508 under a permit from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), making annual payments per the lease agreement.
North Hills terminated the lease, alleging unauthorized injection activities and substances, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief to halt Webb’s operations.
After prevailing on injunctive relief, North Hills sued for tort claims (negligence, trespass, nuisance, breach of fiduciary duty) and unjust enrichment, claiming contamination.
A jury ruled in favor of Webb Construction on all claims. The trial court set aside the verdict and granted a new trial; Webb appealed this interlocutory order.
Central issues included whether North Hills proved injury, whether unjust enrichment was barred by contract, and the effect of the prior decision (Webb-I).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Evidence for Tort Claims	North Hills provided uncontradicted evidence of contamination and thus injury from Webb's activities.	No injury was proven; contamination did not exceed health standards and DEP approved all actions.	Jury’s verdict supported by evidence; North Hills failed to prove injury, so verdict stands.
Effect of Prior Webb-I Decision	Webb-I findings established elements for all claims, binding the court and jury.	Webb-I was about injunctive relief and contract; did not resolve tort or injury issues in this case.	Webb-I did not control or establish injury/tort liability; jury free to decide based on current evidence.
Unjust Enrichment Claim	Webb was unjustly enriched by using property for waste disposal beyond lease scope.	Lease governed all injection rights; unjust enrichment can't apply when express contract covers same subject.	Existing contract precludes quasi-contract/unjust enrichment claim; new trial on this claim improper.
New Trial Standard	Jury’s verdict contrary to evidence; failure of justice requires a new trial.	North Hills just failed to meet its burden; no miscarriage of justice or legal error present.	New trial only for clear prejudicial error or injustice; neither present here. Circuit court abused its discretion.

Foster v. Sakhai, 210 W. Va. 716, 559 S.E.2d 53 (W. Va. 2001) (sets appellate jurisdiction for orders granting a new trial and standard for reversal)
Koontz v. Long, 181 W. Va. 800, 384 S.E.2d 837 (W. Va. 1989) (jury is exclusive finder of fact on conflicting evidence)
Gulfport Energy Corp. v. Harbert Private Equity Partners, LP, 244 W. Va. 154, 851 S.E.2d 817 (W. Va. 2020) (unjust enrichment not available where contract governs subject)
Maynard v. Adkins, 193 W. Va. 456, 457 S.E.2d 133 (W. Va. 1995) (appellate court will reinstate jury verdict improperly set aside)
Boury v. Hamm, 156 W. Va. 44, 190 S.E.2d 13 (W. Va. 1972) (plaintiff’s burden to prove every element of claim in civil cases)